My hubby is lucky to have originals and copies of handwritten notes by ancestors who were documenting a slice of his family history. Above, part of a multipage manuscript written in 1875 by my husband's 1c4r, Dr. James Anderson Work (1845-1928). A descendant used it when writing the genealogy of the Work family and a genealogy of the intermarried Larimer family.
This handwritten document has a lot of detail, sometimes even specific dates for births, marriages, and deaths. Certain aspects of these ancestors' lives are described particularly vividly, including the shipwreck of Robert Larimer (1719-1803), my husband's immigrant ancestor who came to the American colonies in about 1741 (according to this note).
The two handwritten family histories concur on many key points but differ on others, including the year Robert Larimer arrived in America, the maiden name of his wife, and the year of his death.
Since I posted Brice's handwritten note on Ancestry more than a decade ago, 170 other users have saved it to their family trees. Understandably, since solid genealogical documentation is scarce for these ancestors at that time and place.
Still, I view these notes as clues, only starting points for research. They offer a decent outline of the family tree, but too many details are missing or inconsistent. Remember, Dr. Work wrote in 1875 about ancestors born more than 150 years earlier. Brice McClure wrote in the 1940s about ancestors born more than 200 years earlier.
If the notes had been contemporaneous with the events (written close to the time when the ancestor arrived in America, for instance, or started a family), I would have more confidence in the content.
Much as I appreciate and enjoy these handwritten notes, I hope my ongoing research will uncover additional sources to verify more names, dates, and stories.
What are your thoughts about handwritten family history notes like these?
